- And this blank page where my fingers move
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
- Defeat Corbett
- Set off without a Paddle: Unpacking the School District’s Disaster Capitalism
Go Brendan Skwire
Submitted by hannahjs on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 9:41am.
link:
Go Brendan, for your extremely cogent recommendation to Mayor Nutter to replicate the tax on beer that goes to our school district to make up our library budget gap, and for your feature in the Philadelphia Weekly!
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/articles/18072/cover-story
BrendanCalling is the perfect
example of unproductive ranting that only distracts us from focussing on the real issues.
The reason why I spend any time at all at this website is because its contributors appear to be guided by a penchant for reasoning and verification rather than emotion laden, "wise@ss", rants.
That the media wastes this much time promoting him is reflective of why they themselves are currently fearful of becoming irrelevant.
beer tax
in response to my question about increasing the per drink tax by a few cents, the mayor told us that the tax was a state tax. is that true? I don't think so. I'm calling the departmentn of revenue, but in the meantime, can someone with knowledge clarify?
now officially calling bullshit
I am sorry that the mayor feels he is forced to shut libraries, but there is no excuse for providing misinformation when a constituent asks a question and provides a possible avenue to avoid those closings.
The mayor, who should know better, told me last night at the town hall meeting that the liquor tax is a state tax. the Philadelphia department of revenue begs to differ (warning PDF):
after 10 minutes on hold with the revenue department for clarification from a human, i called Philadelphia Forward instead: i don't agree with everything Brett mandel's group stands for, but they DO know a lot about taxes. PF confirmed for me that the liquor-by-the-drink tax was passed by act of City Council, is levied only in philadelphia, and supports only our district (which is controlled by the state).
I do not see why council could to act to add another few cents on top of that to fund our libraries. i realize no one likes tax hikes, but i have to say, as someone who drinks a lot of beer, I wouldn't feel it all that much and in fact would be happy to pay more for booze if I knew it was supporting literacy and opportunities for kids.
Nutter/council/casinos
Given the pro-casino bias of Nutter and Council, I think acquiring their support for a tax on alcohol consumption seems unlikely. It does, however, seem like a great idea to me.
Brendan you are absolutely correct
To be clear it was not a tax on liquor from state stores or beer take-outs, however. It was a tax on drinks by "the dram" or glass in bars. Joe Vignola authored while on Council and Street as head of council, to his credit, helped guide it through. I actualy had a conversation with Vignola about it when he was considering a run at the State Senate oh those many months ago. Nutter should know this and I am very surprised if he didn't. Of course if you are on auto-pilot saying "we can't" maybe it shuts off part of your brain, who knows?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
City stuck with 10% rate
Although the "liquor by the drink" tax is authorized by City ordinance, it is imposed under authority of a state law that limits the City to a rate of 10%: "...Any council of any city of the first class coterminous with a school district of the first class may authorize the board of education of such school district of the first class to levy a tax imposed upon each separate sale at retail as defined herein within the school district of the first class of ten per cent of the sale price" (53 P.S. §16134).
Let's tax lattes, too.
Pittsburgh raised its per drink tax last year to help pay for public transit.
It is a splendid idea to have all the beer drinkers pay for libraries. On the one hand, it will help with your self-esteem problems to know that you are contributing to the common good. On the other hand, maybe it will get some of youse out of the bars and into the libraries!
Now, how about going a step forward and creating a per latte tax. My guess is that it would be a fairly progressive tax. The problem, however, is that it would be a tax on Nutter's base.
But maybe we can modify the idea to fit with the Nutter administrations pro-business / anti-tax slant.
Some of us have suggested that we ought to open coffee shops in or near libraries (and allow people to drink the coffee sold in the libraries) we could go a step further and create caffeine opportunity zones in the libraries, where the per latte tax would not apply.
It's been a long week and it's only Wednesday
Regressive
Hey Brendan, nice to see you writing here. But I don't agree with a liquor-by-the-drink tax. It's a regressive tax. And it's less of a permanent fix and more of a stop-gap. Kind of like how Harrisburg always tries to keep taxing cigarettes. Yeah people should not smoke or drink, but they do.
I do agree that we need more revenue (obviously) so I am totally down with tax fixes--just so long as the pain is a bit more evenly split.
Not to beat a dead horse, but we all have tax decrease coming to us next year on our wage taxes, at at least 66% of it have said they would give it up to avoid cuts. Next budget year is gonna be worse (maybe they will close Kingsessing rec too) so we gotta real money--hundreds of millions--into the city to prevent more cuts.
totally happy to give up my wage tax cut
Hey ray,
yeah nice to be here. It's about the only place where I'm actually seeing new ideas and dialogue about how to solve our cities problems.
Thanks for the info on the drink tax everyone, both the stuff that supports and undermines my premises.
There's gotta be something that can be done. I'm not buying this "kill the patient to save him" mentality.
regressive?
I don't see how it's a regressive tax: people of all income levels go to bars and/or buy sixpacks.
I don't understand the administration's obsession with tax cuts.
By the way, has anyone else seen this:
yet Jon Valania at phawker told me rendell was on WHYY saying the state has no money for the libraries, that the dough's already spent. as the kids say, WTF?
can someone explain this to me, because obviously I'm missing something.
here is what is even funnier
Nutter knows all about the liquor by the drink tax since he voted for this resolution in 2001. Apparently City Council bills from the 90s are not online, but it'd be interesting to see who voted for it.
Regressivity
Regressive, as a word, has a negative connotation, but in tax policy it's defined narrowly, and a drink tax is regressive,as it behaves like a sales tax:
It's a flat tax on a transaction. So, if Donald Trump buys a beer, he pays 10% for the drink. If I - a poor non-profit worker - buy a beer, I also pay a 10% tax. Paying the same rate on the transaction is what makes it regressive.
In the Deep South, most taxes are raised by sales taxes and the like so that the tax burden automatically falls on working and poor people. The way Southern states treat moderate-income citizens is what we want to avoid.
Progressivity means graduated tax rates for different levels of transaction. For example, in New York there is no sales tax on clothing purchases UNDER $110. That's an attempt at progressivity.
Hope this helps to explain the concepts.
Phree Philly
www.ourcommonwealth.org
www.urbantools.org
So, are you prepared to say
So, are you prepared to say that a 10% tax on the sale of yachts is "regressive"?
Cause that would be a real stretch.
I think the crucial element missing from your analysis is whether the item being taxed constitutes a "luxury" or "necessity."
And I think it's more than fair to argue that buying liquor by the drink at a bar is clearly not a necessity.
Oh, and one other thing -
Oh, and one other thing - the reason why NY removed its sales tax for clothing under $110 was because so many NY residents were going to NJ to buy clothing.
In other words, the policy was not an attempt to redress the regressive nature of the tax. It was meant to provide relief for NYC merchants.
Which ultimately undermines the position advanced by some on this website that local tax policy does not affect purchasing decisions.
Luxury
Yeah DeWitt articulates well the reason why so many states levy tobacco and alcohol taxes. Largely because they are non-essentials. But the tax is still regressive--the $30 k a year wage earner pays a much bigger percent of their income in tax for their Lager than the $100 k earner.
I am saying that there are better ways to raise revenue--and raise a lot more of it--I think the liquor by the drink tax brought in like $49 m last year--than this. And that are a bit fairer (like a property tax increase with a universal exemption, or just letting go of the wage tax increase, restructuring the net profits tax, or hiking the wage tax rate but introducing a universal exemption).
But it is easy to go after people who drink versus actually standing before the city--as Mayor Nutter did not--and saying "we're in a crisis, we all need to pitch in."
"But it is easy to go after
"But it is easy to go after people who drink"
hey, i resemble that remark! It took a lot of beer to grow my belly. But yeah, i get your point, although my counter argument also still stands: such a tax wouldn't affect people who buy by the case, which is SOP in Pennsylvania. It's well known that a 6-pack in Pennsylvania costs almost as much as a case, and not everyone drinks in bars.
that's not to dismiss your other tax proposals, which are indeed a bit fairer and affect everyone, not just us imbibers.
desperate
We're not desperate enough yet to push for this tax. At some point maybe we would need to, but with a crappy property tax system, business tax loopholes you could drive a truck through, and wage tax relief coming from state, I just don't think we're at the level where we should do this kind of regressive tax. There are better, and more lucrative, tax solutions. Plus, this kind of opens up the door to tax other stuff that is not taxed now and is kind of unfair.
I agree on the NY clothing tax
Absolutely. I agree. My point was you can sort of ape progressivity by having a cutoff, or by exempting items like food, or adding items like yachts.
Also, New York is throwing in the towel on that one, as they face a monstrous deficit from falling Wall Street revenues...
Phree Philly
www.ourcommonwealth.org
www.urbantools.org
I AM prepared to say
That the definition of the words "regressive" and "progressive" in tax policy terminology are what I described. I am not putting any moral or ethical definitions on them.
I am prepared to say that a yacht tax falls heavily on those who buy yachts, because that's what a yacht tax is supposed to do.
I have no opinion about luxury taxes, because the very rich are very good at avoiding them (California is wrestling right now with a "sloophole" in their yacht tax.), but I would rather the rich pay more taxes proportionally than poor people. The question is how to do it.By the way, there is no sales tax on yachts in Rhode Island or New Hampshire. Guess where many people go to buy yachts?
Buying booze is certainly not a necessity. Yet, a drink tax falls within the definition of regressive, as defined by tax administrators and economists; none of which makes it wrong or right.
By the way, I've heard that most shot'n'beer bars don't collect the drink tax anyway; the tax is reserved for Center City tony watering holes. Any truth to that?
Kind of
Enforcement in neighborhoods is less than in CC. But lots of neighborhood folks still pay it. But this is one of the reasons this tax has brought in less revenue than planned.
I meant within tax definition
"Regressive, as a word, has a negative connotation, but in tax policy it's defined narrowly, and a drink tax is regressive,as it behaves like a sales tax"
I get what your saying, and i asked my question within the context of the tax code (or at least I meant to).
I DO get your point about "The way Southern states treat moderate-income citizens is what we want to avoid." Still... it would an effective revenue source. It's not just poor people who drink in bars or by the six pack.
Actually if you think about it (in my make-believe world where the state allows us to increase the booze-by-the-drink tax buy a cent or two) the tax would only affect those drinking in bars. People of moderate income who buy cases of beer to drink at home over the course of the week (like me) wouldn't be affected as much. The new jersey barhoppers in old city on the other hand...
but that's just make believe anyway, since the state imposes a limit on how much of a tax.
data
2 more things:
1- Can anyone find data on bar sales by demographic? Yeah a lot of young people drink in Old City, but lots of people drink at neighborhood bars (Abby's Desert Lounge anyone) too. It'd be interesting to see the break-down. Especially by income.
2- When the tax first went through, and when a similar tax was proposed in Allegheny County, restaurant owners said that they could not pass the increase on to customers easily since drink prices are so low anyway (compared to like a tax increase on a TV). So they say they got shafted. Don't know if this is true, but worth considering.
Again, giving up a wage tax reduction from casino revenue is just a lot less complicated than this and raises a lot more money. Remember, we're looking at much bigger budget cuts coming in the very short-term. So we need a big revenue raiser(s) soon.
Don't know about the demographics...
...but for Allegheny County, they dropped the rate after a year because it brought in too much money (!), and there was some evidence (not conclusive to me) that sales of drinks went to other counties.
Phree Philly
www.ourcommonwealth.org
www.urbantools.org
I cannot believe that you
I cannot believe that you are taking away our parade on Second Street after all these years. Most of the bands have their clubs there anyway. What are they supposed to do, just walk up the street? There has to be another alternative. We of South Philadeldelphia are not going to take this lightly. This has been a tradition since i was a child. And what about the Convention Center? I didnt hear anything about that. Mr. Mayor, every year this parade brings alot of revenue into the city because all hotels are booked and people come from all over to see it. I think you are missing that very important point here. You should rethink this whole idea.
Mummers Must Strut!!!
I cannot believe that you are taking away our parade on Second Street after all these years. Most of the bands have their clubs there anyway. What are they supposed to do, just walk up the street? There has to be another alternative. We of South Philadeldelphia.
This one got cut off, so did another. Sorry